nasa operational envir0t marshall space flight …infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/23/22160.pdf · marshall...
Post on 13-Jun-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
. ,. . . I ,
2
ALTERNATIVE CLEANERS TECHNOLOGY DATA EXCHANGE
NASA OPERATIONAL ENVIR0"T TEAM MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER (MSFC)
10&11 AUGUST 1993
._ - -. . . .. . . . .
EVALUATION OF AQUEOUS CLEANING AGENTS AS ALTERNATIVE TO
CHLORINATED SOLVENT DEGREASING
ALANR. BROWN MATERIALS ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
CANOGA PARK. CALIFORNIA
ALTERNATIV
OBJECTIVES
0 ELIMINATE USE OF 1 ,I ,I ' TRICHLOROETHANE (TCA) AND CFC-113
0 REPLACE SOLVENT DEGREASING WITH AQUEOUS CLEANING
0 IDENTIFY MOST EFFECTIVE ALL-PURPOSE AQUEOUS CLEANER
AO120.1
0 IDENTIFY, TEST AND EVALUATE CLEANERS FOR BASIC REQUIREMENTS
MUST MEET ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH & SAFETY REGULATIONS
LOW FOAMING, STABLE, AND EASY TO MAINTAIN
COMPATIBLE WITH BASE MATERIALS
GOOD SOLUTION AND DRIED PRECIPITATE RlNSABlLlTY
GOOD CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS
A0120.2
I PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF MSDS I AN6~T.E.cHNicA~L~LiT~ERATuRE B v
I NICKEL SULFUR EMBRITTLEMENT TEST I
I TITANIUM
COMPATIBILITY
I I
RlNSABlLlTY TEST
I
RlNSABlLlTY TEST SOLUTION REMOVAL DRIED PRECIPITATE REMOVAL
CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS TEST
GENERAL ,
AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
1
I .I . STRESS CORROSION CRACKING TEST
I I I
ACCEPTABLE CLEANER FOR I PILOT PLANT EVALUATION A01203
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ON VOC LIMITS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION PROP. 65
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LA COUNTY REG.
LOW voc
NO CHROME
NO SULFIDES
INITIAL RESULTS OF LONG TERM TOXICITY STUDY INDICATE THAT D-LIMONENE MAY BE A I CARCINOGEN
NO TERPENES CONTAINING D-LIMONENE I 1 LOW TOXICITY 1 GENERAL HEALTH & SAFETY CONCERN
HIGH FLASH POINT I POTENTIAL EXPLOSION HAZARD IF CLEANER IS NOT COMPLETELY RINSED FROM INTERNAL CAVITIES I
I 1 GENERAL SHOP FIRE HAZARD
STRONG ODORS RESULT IN A I "PERCEIVED HEALTH HAZARD NO TERPENES OR OTHER CLEANERS I WITH STRONG ODORS
A0120.4
AQUEOUS CLEANER REQUIREMENTS
ME&T REQUIREMENTS
COMPATIBLE WITH BASE MATERIAL
LOW SULFUR CONTENT I LOW CHLORIDE CONTENT
GOOD SOLUTION AND DRIED PRECIPITATE RlNSABlLlTY
NO SlLlCATED CLEANERS THAT LEAVE A RESIDUE I GOOD CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS I
I LOW FOAMING
->
STABLE SOLUTION
GOOD SOLUTION MAINTENANCE I
REASON FOR REQUIREMENT
CLEANER MUST NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON HARDWARE
NICKEL COMPATIBILITY
TITANIUM COMPATIBILITY GENERAL METALLIC CORROSION
CLEANER RESIDUE INTERFERES WITH DYE PENETRANT INSPECTION
REDUCES PROCESSING TIME
REDUCES REJECTION RATE
IMPROVES PROCESSING CONDITIONS
PREVENTS SOLUTION MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
PROVIDES CONSISTENT CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
A0120.5
t
EVALUATION OF AQUEOUS CLEANING AGENTS AS ALTERNATIVE TO CHLORINATED SOLVENT DEGREASING
0 TEST METHOD FOR SULFUR EMBRITTLEMENT OF NICKEL
CLEANING SOLUTION IS ENCAPSULATED IN A Ni 200 TUBE
FULL CIRCLE CROSS SECTION IS EXAMINED AT 1OOX
Ni TUBE IS HEATED IN AIR FURNACE FOR 10 min. AT 130OOF
NO IGA DEPTH > 0.003”
A0120.6
EVALUATION OF AQUEOUS CLEANING AGENTS AS ALTERNATIVE TO CHLORINATED SOLVENT DEGREASING
0 TEST METHOD FOR TITANIUM SCC COMPATIBILITY
CLEANING SOLUTION IS APPLIED TO BENT BEAM Ti TEST PANELS
ONE PANEL, FLUID IS TESTED AFTER AIR DRY
ONE PANEL, FLUID IS TESTED WET
PANELS ARE HEATED IN AIR FURNACE FOR 4 hr. AT 1000" F
0 PANELS ARE BWT AROUND 10T DIA.
EXAMINED FOR CRACKS AT 30X AND 200X
NO EVIDENCE OF CRACKS
A0120.7
I
EVALUATION OF AQUEOUS CLEANING AGENTS AS ALTERNATIVE TO CHLORINATED SOLVENT DEGREASING
/
0 TEST METHOD FOR SOLUTION RlNSABlLlTY
Ni BASE ALLOY TEST PANELS ARE CLEANED, DRIED, & WEIGHED
CLEAN TEST PANELS ARE IMMERSED IN CLEANING SOLUTION 3 min.
PANELS ARE RINSED IN D.I. WATER & AIR DRIED
PANELS ARE REWEIGHED & INSPECTED FOR RESIDUES '%
WEIGHT CHANGE IS RECORDED NO VISUAL RESIDUE AFTER AIR DRY
NO WHITE RESIDUE AFTER APPLIED DROP OF IPA
A0120.8
0 TEST METHOD FOR DRIED PRECIPITATE RlNSABlLlTY
0 Ni BASE ALLOY TEST PANELS ARE CLEANED, DRIED, & WEIGHED
CLEAN TEST PANELS ARE IMMERSED IN CLEANING SOLUTION 3 min.
PANELS ARE DRIED AT 49ANGLE WITHOUT RINSING OFF CLEANING SOLUTION
PANELS ARE WEIGHED & AMOUNT OF RESIDUE RECORDED . PANELS ARE RINSED IN COLD AND/OR HOT D.I. WATER
9 PANELS ARE DRIED, REWEIGHED, & INSPECTED FOR RESIDUES
. LOOK FOR WATER BREAK FREE SURFACE
WEIGHT CHANGE IS RECORDED . NO VISUAL RESIDUE AFTER AIR DRY . NO WHITE RESIDUE AFTER APPLIED DROP OF IPA
A0120.9
0 TEST METHODS FOR CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS
TEST PANEL IS CLEANED, DRIED, & WEIGHED
TYPICAL SHOP SOIL IS APPLIED TO PANEL & BAKED lhr. AT 200'F
0 PANEL IS IMMERSED FOR 40 min., MAX. CLEANER SOLUTION AT RECOMMENDED OPERATING TEMPERATURE
PANEL IS REMOVED PERIODICALLY, RINSED & EXAMINED
LOOK FOB WATER BREAK FREE SURFACE
RECORD TIME IN CLEANER SOLUTION
WEIGH TO CALCULATE RESIDUE
AO120.10
I
0 CORROSION TESTS PERFORMED
0 GENERAL CORROSION
0 STRESS CORROSION CRACKING
0 METAL ALLOYS EVALUATED
CO ALLOY HAYNES 188 CU ALLOY NARLOY-Z
NI ALLOY 718 TI ALLOY 5 AL-2.5 SN
21-26-9 PH STEEL ALALLOY 2024
440C STEEL 4130 STEEL
A0 1 20.1 1 A
z 0 z 0 U U 0 0 -I <
CT w
z w
c3 U 0
LL
n 0 I
I- w
2
+ v)
w
I-
o
n
W I
s n
a d
n
n-
a
z
W
LT -
W
z
W
6 a
cn -1
W
z a
3 L 0
n
W I
ki! W
rf
z
n
a
n-
n
n-
W
LT - W
cn z
LT
W
-
n-
2 6 W
LT
Y a
W
z a
0
0 TEST METHOD FOR STRESS CORROSION CRACKING
C-RINGS PER ASTM G38
STRESSED @ 75% YIELD STRENGTH DETERMINED BY STRAIN GAGE
EXPOSED TO CLEANER BY METHOD SlMllAR TO ASTMG44
0 ALTERNATE IMMERSION
10 MIN. IN SOLUTION 50MIN. OUT SOLUTION
SPECIMENS EXAMINED 2X PER DAY
0 CONTINUED UNTIL CRACKING OBSERVED
OR
FOR MAX. 30 DAYS
A0120.11C
0 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
FTlR FINGERPRINT OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
EDXRF FOR PRESENCE OF ELEMENTS HIGHER THAN Na
ION CHROMATOGRAPHY
DETERMINE % NVR
FLASHPOINT'TEST PER ASTM D92 TEST
CLEVELAND OPEN CUP METHOD
A0120.11D
0 STATUS:
CONTACTED 95 SUPPLIERS TO REVIEW 200 CLEANERS
63 ELIMINATED THRU ME&T AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (v
L L,zA( $i?
INITIATED TESTING FOR 78 POTENTIAL CANDIDATES
78 TESTED FOR Ni COMPATIBILITY
39 TESTED FOR Ti COMPATIBILITY \ J ' \\b J $5
44 TESTED FOR RlNSABlLlTY t v \ A p +
12 TESTED FOR CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS
8 TESTED FOR CORROSIVE EFFECTS
A0 1 20.1 2
RESULTS:
51 MET ROCKETDYNE Ni COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
36 MET ROCKETDYNE Ti COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
15 MET ROCKETDYNE RlNSABlLlTY REQUIREMENTS
MOST CLEANERS CONTAINING SILICATES FAILED RlNSABlLlTY
SILICATE RESIDUE CAN INTERFERE WITH PENETRANT INSPECTION -
CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS AND CORROSIVE PROPERTIES ,
SOIL AND/OR SUBSTRATE SPECIFIC . CANNOT READILY SUMMARIZE RESULTS
A0120.13
0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
AQUEOUS CLEANING CAN REPLACE TCA & CFC-113 CLEANING
0 OTHER REPLACEMENT CLEANERS PRESENT PROBLEMS
INCOMPATIBLE WITH OXYGEN-RICH ENGINE SYSTEMS
POSE H&S OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
0 AQUEOUS CLEANER SELECTION REQUIRES EVALUATION & TEST
NO SINGLE AQUEOUS CLEANER CAN CLEAN ALL SOILS ENCOUNTERED
SOME SHOP SOILS ARE IMPERVIOUS TO AQUEOUS CLEANING
CLEANING AGENT SELECTION SPECIFIC TO SOILS & SUBSTRATES
~
MUST ESTABLISH YOUR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
MUST TEST TO DETERMINE WHAT IS EFFECTIVE IN YOUR SHOP
A0120.14
0 SUMMARY
0 200 CLEANERS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED
DATA COMPILED IN TABULAR FORM
0 DATA INCLUDES CLEANERS MEETING ROCKETDYNE REQUIREMENTS FOR:
Ni COMPATJBILITY . Ti COMPATIBILITY RlNSABlLlTY . CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS vs. ROCKETDYNE SOILS
A0120.15
a AQUEOUS CLEANER SELECTION IS SUBSTRATE & SOIL SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS BASED ON ROCKETDYNE HARDWARE AND PROCESSES
MANY GOOD AQUEOUS CLEANERS AVAILABLE
0 WHAT WORKS WELL AT ONE COMPANY MAY NOT AT ANOTHER
a REJECTION OF A CLEANER IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ITS QUALITY
MANY GOOD CLEANERS REJECTED DUE TO UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS
I
A01 20.16
.\ I
I
I I I I I
I 100, 000 CLASS C LEANROO M I I Ye
b9 I I GENERAL SHOP AREA I
I I
I
I
I I
CFC 113
VERIFY
VAPOR DEG R EASE
CLEAN 1,1,1 - tric., VERIFY
EMULSION D EG R EASE
I
I I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _
I I
I
I I CLEAN I
I - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - _
A01 28.17
I
M I CLEANROO ’ 100,000 c LASS I I I
I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I VISUALLY I
’ CLEAN I
i GENERAL SHOP AREA I I
I 1 I I I
I I I I I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROUGH CLEAN I I
PROCESS
CLEAN 44 I I ,
3% I I 5
U I I
I I I
I
A0128.18
DEVELOPED AN AQUEOUS FINE CLEAN PROCESS
/ I CL 0 BASED ON ULTRASONIC CLEANING TECHNIQUES ?,?
USING IN-HOUSE AQUEOUS CLEANERS
FACILITY IS CURRENTLY IN BIDDING PROCESS
0 SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION IN MARCH '94 -.\
A01 20.1 9
I AQUEOUS CLEANING FACILITY
CANOGA - FINE CLEAN -
r
ULTRASONIC CLEANING LINE BY NAPCO
.20
SPRAY ULTRASONIC RINSE
I
I SPRAY RINSE EVALUATE
FOR WATER BREAK FREE
SURFACE
- I CLEAN IN T:U.RC.02?4215,3 I ADDITIVE
1 I c
SPRAY RINSE
EVALUATE
500 ml SOLVENT FLUSH
PARTICLE COUNT \ & NVR \ AO120.22
.21
GROUNC LRlEl /
L I D
HIGH LIOUID LEVEL
EXHAUST HEADER
SPACE ALLOWED FOR TRANSDUCERS
1 ' MECHANICAL
ROOM -
ROOM ALLOWED FOR
(TYP) STEAM HEATING COILS
ELEVATION DRAWING -
AQUEOUS FINE CLEAN TANKS
AQUEOUS FINE
0 FACILITY IS DESIGNED TO
CLEAN BY 25-40 KHZ ULTRASONIC AGITATION 3 TANKS 4 ’X4 ’X4 :
3 TANKS 5 ’ X 5 ’ X 5 ’
, ,$AN/ RINSE BY HIGH PRESSURE, HIGH VOLUME D.I. WATER SPRAY 7-A +A.
i ’
PARTS PROCESSED THRU 3 CLEANING AGENTS, EACH FOLLOWED P
Lf BY SPRAY RINSE
EMULSION DEGREASER: TURCO 3878,‘ 20% / VOL. MILD ALKALINE CLEANER: TURCO 4215 NC-LT, 3-3.5%/WT. DILUTE SURFACTANT: TURCO 421 5 ADDITIVE, 0.04% / VOL. CLEANING SOLUTIONS PREPARED USING D.I. WATER
0 EMULSION DEGREASER & MILD ALKALINE CLEANER ARE FILTERED TO 10 MICRONS .-
j.
0 SURFACTANT & ALL D.I. WATER ARE FILTERED TO 3 MICRONS
0 AFTER COMPLETING CLEANING CYCLES, PARTS ARE VERIFIED FOR CLEANLINESS . WATER FLUSH TO MEET PARTICLE REQUIREMENTS, ONLY
SOLVENT FLUSH FOR NONVOLATILE RESIDUE REQUIREMENTS
A0120.24
. .
0 AQUEOUS CLEANING CAN REPLACE TCA & CFC-113 CLEANING
0 OTHER REPLACEMENT CLEANERS PRESENT PROBLEMS
0 INCOMPATIBLE WITH OXYGEN-RICH ENGINE SYSTEMS
POSE H&S OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
0 AQUEOUS CLEANER SELECTION REQUIRES EVALUATION & TEST
NO SINGLE AQUEOUS CLEANER CAN CLEAN ALL SOILS ENCOUNTERED
SOME SHOP SOILS ARE IMPERVIOUS TO AQUEOUS CLEANING
CLEANING AGENT SELECTION SPECIFIC TO SOILS & SUBSTRATES MUST ESTABLISH YOUR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS MUST TEST TO DETERMINE WHAT IS EFFECTIVE INYOUR SHOP
0 ROCKETDYNE COMMITTED TO ALL-AQUEOUS CLEANING
AQUEOUS FINE CLEAN FACILITY DEVELOPED
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SCHEDULED IN APRIL '94
A0120.23
s
To: J.A. Purvis
From: &%. Moan ~.zoH- Science & Technology
Subject Solvent Solubility Parameters And Their Application
Interoffice Memo
Bacchus Works Magna, Utah
December 18, 1992
,I. Backaround
Many commonly used solvents at Hercules and throughout the aerospace industry will be phased off of the produclion flcor due to their being classtied as Ozone Depletlng Substances (ODs) or due to other safety concerns. We have skuations where we need to olean 8 wide variety of contaminants from paints and b- staged polymers to dusting and general cleanlng. Solvent substitution has especially been troublesome for such versatile cleaners a8 1 ,I ,I Trichloroethane (TCA) for whioh no drop4 replaoement has been found,
. exoept for perhaps some of the other chlorinated solvents Which have been classtied as oarcinogefiic, . - . teratogenio, or having some other chronic efiects.
it appears from review of many solvent substitution studies throughout the industry that a trlal-and-error approach is being employed with large numbers of candidates from just a few ohemicai families and most being totally ignored. A more systematlo aRpmach must be used when attacking a large variety of contamlnants, substrates, and processing environments. The adage of like-dissolves~like is coned in philosophy, but can be a mideadlng guide, especially wlh the popular misconception that thls is refening only to polarity. A measurement system is needed that is well documented and acoepted thmughout the industry and that can be applied in an additive manner to estlmate the effect Of solvent blending to optimize propertles.
J~-K'
The solubility parameter system has pmven to be the most practical, quantkative guide for selecting solvent candidates for testing. If we have characterized the solute, we have a good starting point for determining the likely solvents and a guide to optimizing by blending. SP takes the Ilke-dlssolves-like logic backfo baslo themodynamlcs In evaluating the mixing compatbility of mategals by describing and quantifying the forces holding materials together or cohesive enem. The density of cohesive energy Is most useful for predicting the solubility and swelling pswer of sets of materials In conjunction with matching other ptCpertle$ mentioned later.
During !he dssoluuon pmcess, the Intermolecular bonds of materials A and B are broken while new bonds between the difterent materials are formed, if these A-A, E-$, and A.8 bonds are similar, little energy will be needed to replace the broken A-A and 8.8 bonds with the newly formed A-B bonds. But if the A-A b n d IS much stronger than the A.8 and 6-9 bends, breaking the A-A bond will be thermodynamically unfavorable.'
i
. . . .I .. , .
!
. . . 8. ' Gardcn, J.L. "Cchssive Energy Density" Vol. 3
Solubility Parameters and Their Applicatlcn 18 December 1992
Comparisons of SP ala the mo$t important fador in determining the AH (heat of mixing) of two materials. This AH must be minimized to drive the process since AG-AH-TAS (Eq. 1) must be negative for the process to proceeda.
.
AQ = Excess Gbbs free energy
AS = Change in entropy T = Absolute temperature
AS Is Invariably positive in the solution process since it involves sepaation of molecules in a liquid or exxpandocln al degrees o! freedom in a gel. Therefore, at constant temperature, the sign of dG Is controlled by AH. The most u6eful treatment for determining AH is from Hildebranb
1 I
Ahn vfn
AE V $
I I
- Overall heat of mkirtg (ea0 - Total mixture volume (cm') - Energy of vaporkation (oal/mol) - Molar volume (cma/mco - Vclume fraction
Eq. 2
The factar ( A W ) Is the energy of vaporization per om3 for each oomponent, also known as the "cohesive energy density". This Is a measurement af the energy needed to totally separate (vapodze) the molecules of 1 c d of mafebal to Infinity by overcoming the intermolecular forces holding the material together.
The square root of the oohesive enefgy density is of primary 'mgortance In the heat of mixing term and Hildebrand defined it as the material's solubilitv Parameter CSl.
Eq. 3
The units are in (MefQyNol)" which converts to (caVcma)P*s = 2.05 MPa".
with the two moei common unks being
- ~ ~~
Hildebrmd, J. and Scott, R. "The Solubility of NOn.EImoW (1949)
lbld
2
' WG I.? '93 I @ : Z I G M THIGKGL RXrD _ I .
P. 5/9
Solubility Parameters and Their Appiication 18 December 1992
If no other detailed Information Is available, havlng the &and general H bonding class of a material Can give a suitable general solubility description of the material. A more recent overvlew of the data and testing techniques was used by Burrell' to classify the major chemlcal familles into three groups:
-
Strong I4 Bond - Alcohols, Amines, Amides, Aldehydes, Acids Mcderate H Bond - Esters, Ketones, Ethers, Glycol monoethers Poor H b n d - Aliphatios, .k"tic6, Chlorinated hydrocarbons, Nitrohydrocarbons
IV. Polar Sondlnu Effects
Polar effects arise from Induced polarby by atomic charge migration In non-polar materials (dispersion 01 London foross), orientation of 2 polar molecules (Uipole-dlpole or Keesom interacllon), or by dipole-induced dlpole effeots for a polar and ncn-polar molecule pa!! (Debye lnteraotlon).
There is some disagreement on the importance of dipolar bonding role In Intermolecular attraotlon by permanent or Induced dlpoles. Studies by Hildebrand and Small7 agree that the dipole interaction plays only a small roie in these forces. Small states tor acetone, one of the most polar llquids wfth a dipole moment of 2.9 Debye unffs, the dipole interadion only Oontrlbutes a small amount of the total cohesive energy density. Gardon asserts, though, that In the swelling of polymers, matchlng the fraclional polarlies (p) Is as important as having simiiar 8s. Fractional polarly being calculated from the material's polarizability and ionization potential. This measurement is dccumented for only a small number of solvents and fewer polymers.
Many of the general screenings for solubiflties only depend on the soiubilfty parameter and the H bond class to classify the solvents. This method should work well In most cases. If polaraj data Is available, it car) be included to help further diiierentiate solvents.
j-lansen-Hildebra@d Sclubllitv Parameter
AS aforementioned, the Hlldebrand parameter assumes non-assodating molecules (1.e. no H bonding or polar coupling). The calculation of S from molecular studure can have large errors due to thls assumption (&e. aiwhols,ester$, ketones) and the overall 6 gives no idea how to balance the factors contributing to 6.
Hansen8 expanded an the Hildebrand parameter an4 included all of the major coheslve strength factors which include nan-dlspersive polarity (Q, hydrogen bonding Jh), and dlspershe forces (8,) and comblne to farm the total Solubility parameter (Q.
6,2 = 6,2+6,2CS,2 Eq. 5
' Small, PA., J. APDI. Chem, 3 (1853)
Hansen, C., J, Paint TechrIoloaL Feb. 1867
4
.,
. . Solubility Parameters and Their Appllcation - - 18 December 1992
3 There are a number of ways to graphically represent the important solubility parameters for a material. Various 2- and 3- dimensional graphs have Included 6, 4, ad, 5B, %, ye# p, and dipole moment (p), The format we find the mast useful is S, vs. S,, shoe they vary the most over the solvents of interest. The & of all of the solvents in our database only span 10.3 (Acetonarile) to 26.1 MPaO.’ (Propylene Carbonate). This is only a general deson’ption with the commdn representatlves in our database. The key ’alongside the charts gives the dlspersive parameter (&) in parentheses.
. .
I 1 1 1 1 5 10 I S 20 25
8,(MPa“)
Figure 1 - Solubility Charts For Various Solvents 2 Chemical Families
4j Yaiuena (16.4) 5) Xylene (e&) (16.7) 6) Dipentene (-Limonene) (16.3) 71 CVdoheXme (16.5)
(14.4 14) Pmpylene glycol methyl ether
ammm (PMA) (16.1) 16) Oihsxyl ertrer (15,l) 6) Methylene Chlaride (13.4) 17) Melhyl e!hyi ketone (MEK) (14.1) le) EWl batate (13.4) le) Butyl lacgte (EL) (15.8) 20) Dipropylsne glycol methyl ether
(DPM) (15.5) 21) Acatone (13.0) 22) AcatoniMle (10.8) 23) y Bulymlaomne (KO of GEL)
24) N-Medlyl Wrralidone (NMP)
25) Methyl lactate (MY (16.5) 26) l-Nonanol (15.3) 27) Propylene qlycol memyl ether
(PM) (15.6) 28) Isopropyl doohal (IPA) (15.8) ‘29) E U ” l (16.E) 30) Melhkanol (11.6)
(18.6)
(16.6)
6
. . . . . . . . .
,
Solubility Parameters and Their Application 18 December 1992 .
As part Of the ODs replacement Process Sewice project, we were asked to determine what solvenWcbaners would be best used to remove cured D5 propellant (vn-1). A simple solvent swell screening was done with a sample of available WAK-2 propellant (IC-08934) which Is almost ldentlcal to V N - ' I . The swelling of the propellant was determined by ohange In volume In WAK-I chips after 48 his. (weight gain had stopped), The conclusion drawn was that the optimum 8, was about 24.0 MPa"" which is between NMP and acetonitrile. This agrees pertectly wth the 5 given in the CRC reference'' for Poly(ethy1ene oxlde) which is the dominant ohemlcal strocture of the propellant polymer. The actual 0 swell pohts are estimated at DPM and ethanol since we have ne better resolution with the materials on hand. Several other solvents with 8, below DPM were also tried with no swelling. Note that the blend calculated in the preceding section (67/33 wt MeCVAcetonitriie) was also tested and fell well irl line with the estimated swelling.
I I
Banon, A.F.M., Ed., 'CRC Handbook of Polymer-Uquld intsractlon Panrmeters and Solublllty . , , 13
top related